From Media Matters for America -- June 24, 2010:
Glenn Beck has repeatedly accused Obama administration officials of being communists or similar to communists
Beck has portrayed current and former Obama administration officials as communists, Maoists, Marxists, and socialists. Media Matters has documented Beck's extended campaign of red-baiting Obama and current and former administration officials. Beck has falsely claimed that former White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong; attacked "manufacturing czar" Ron Bloom for citing Mao in a speech, despite the fact that many conservatives have done the same; repeatedly called Obama a socialist and a Marxist and suggested he's a communist; and repeatedly smeared former White House adviser Van Jones as a communist, ignoring the fact that Van Jones has said he's not a communist.
Glenn Beck -- who has said that Sen. Joseph McCarthy was "absolutely right" -- devoted his Fox News show to purportedly helping his viewers decide "was McCarthy right." During the show, Beck renewed his extended campaign of red-baiting President Obama, his family, and progressives, at one point opining on the effectiveness of duck-and-cover drills in raising awareness of the dangers of communism.
BECK: What do they say about McCarthy? Oh, he's conducting witch hunts, smearing innocent victims, spreading hysteria. On February 11, 1950, McCarthy wrote this telegram to the president, President Truman, in which he explained, "I have in my possession the names of 57 communists who are in the State Department at present." [Glenn Beck, 6/24/10]
Beck asks, "Was McCarthy right?" before red-baiting Obama's family and "all of the people who are ruling now." On the June 4 edition of his radio program, Beck said that McCarthy "may have used bad tactics ... but he was absolutely right."
Au Contraire, my Dear Mr. Beck --- the fact is that Senator Joseph McCarthy never proved that one single member of the State Department was a Communist.
At various times, McCarthy claimed to have the names of 57 Communists -- even several hundred "card-carrying Communists" -- in his possession. He never even named one person in the State Department who proved to be a Communist.
Glenn Beck not only idolizes McCarthy -- Beck is doing his best to be "McCarthy's Second Coming". The Big Lie is Beck's favorite technique -- the same as McCarthy's. Keep on saying that people are Communists -- and there are enough gullible poor souls around so that you will never have to prove anything about anyone.
Of course, the fact that Communism has collapsed and is no longer a threat to the USA doesn't mean anything. Keep repeating scary tales about the Bogey Man. I'm surprised Glenn Beck hasn't claimed that Obama's family are all Witches. That's next.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
An Important Message from Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Senator Sanders says:
I'm angry. I'm frustrated. And I want action. I've had my differences with both sides of the aisle, but I have never seen tactics as dangerous as the ones Republicans are using.
Republicans have said "No" to the very changes Americans elected President Obama to make. No to health care reform. Jobs. Clean energy. Regulations so big banks can't wreck our economy and get rich in the process.
They're saying "No" for one explicit reason - to make President Obama fail.
It's a plain and simple political strategy. Republicans think that if they can make Obama fail, they will energize their base, whip up the Tea Partiers like Rand Paul in Kentucky, prey on the fear and frustration of the American people - and pick up seats in November. They even have a name for it, the "Republican Comeback."
That strategy, my friends, must be stopped. We cannot go back to the Bush-Cheney policies, which caused many of the crises we currently face.
Republicans are furiously raising money, and they'll have help. The largest U.S. business lobby for insurance companies and big corporations is planning to spend $50 million to elect "big business" candidates. And the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allows corporations to give as much money as they want in support of candidates. Candidates who stand up to corporate influence risk their voices being drowned out by the big dollars of special interests.
I'm angry. I'm frustrated. And I want action. I've had my differences with both sides of the aisle, but I have never seen tactics as dangerous as the ones Republicans are using.
Republicans have said "No" to the very changes Americans elected President Obama to make. No to health care reform. Jobs. Clean energy. Regulations so big banks can't wreck our economy and get rich in the process.
They're saying "No" for one explicit reason - to make President Obama fail.
It's a plain and simple political strategy. Republicans think that if they can make Obama fail, they will energize their base, whip up the Tea Partiers like Rand Paul in Kentucky, prey on the fear and frustration of the American people - and pick up seats in November. They even have a name for it, the "Republican Comeback."
That strategy, my friends, must be stopped. We cannot go back to the Bush-Cheney policies, which caused many of the crises we currently face.
Republicans are furiously raising money, and they'll have help. The largest U.S. business lobby for insurance companies and big corporations is planning to spend $50 million to elect "big business" candidates. And the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allows corporations to give as much money as they want in support of candidates. Candidates who stand up to corporate influence risk their voices being drowned out by the big dollars of special interests.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
GOP Party of Nope Obstructionist-Destructionist Policies Would Turn USA into Greece -- A Financial Walking Dead Invalid -- Obama Saved the USA
From The Washington Post -- June 16, 2010:
Hesitation by Leaders Drove Cost of Europe's Crisis Higher
By Howard Schneider and Anthony Faiola
The U.S. government and the International Monetary Fund warned European officials as early as February that escalating financial problems on their continent had to be addressed quickly to forestall a larger threat to the world economy, but those urgings were discounted, according to participants in the private discussions.
By the time European officials acted several months later -- prompted by a near-meltdown in Greece and gathering chaos in other countries -- the price tag for stemming the financial contagion had soared.
After the meltdown of the U.S. housing market showed how one country's financial problems can spill across borders, the IMF and leaders of the world's top economies have spoken of a heightened sensitivity to "systemic risk" and a greater focus on preventing it.
But the upheaval in Europe, sparked by the threat of a Greek default, underscored a paradox in how economic powers confront evolving crises. Political systems and their leaders often prove hesitant to take dramatic action on the sort of partial evidence available when a threat is emerging, avoiding decisions on controversial and expensive measures until there is no choice. But once the markets have delivered a full verdict, the crisis is in full swing and stopping it becomes harder and more expensive.
Despite mounting market evidence, warnings from the IMF and what U.S. officials described as "alarm bells" being sounded by the U.S. Treasury, European leaders this winter continued to take a minimalist approach and conclude that Greece could solve its own problems. It was only after world bond markets had all but abandoned the country, interest rates had begun rising in other European nations, and banks had become hesitant to lend each other money -- a phenomenon reminiscent of the 2008 global credit meltdown -- that European officials acted in earnest.
Over the intervening months, the cost of helping Greece avoid default increased about fourfold, to $140 billion from roughly $35 billion at the start of the year. Confidence in the European economy was so badly battered that European leaders together with the IMF had to pledge another nearly $1 trillion to reassure investors. The world's nascent economic recovery was put into jeopardy.
"If we had been able to address it right from the start, say in February, I think we would have been able to prevent it from snowballing the way that it did," French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said in an interview.
Her conclusion was shared in hindsight by many of the key figures involved in the Greek crisis, according to interviews with more than a dozen direct participants in the discussions.
Some senior European economic officials acknowledged that the Americans had pushed for an aggressive response but said they weren't the only ones. Other European officials said no one, including the United States and the IMF, fully understood the gravity of the situation until late April nor pushed intensely to address it.
Although the measures finally taken by European leaders in May helped stabilize markets, the experience raises questions about one of the basic principles now shaping debate over the world economy in the wake of the global finance crisis that spiked in 2008 -- namely that with the right information and tools, political and financial leaders can minimize systemwide risks and forestall problems before they become too serious.
Much as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke insisted for months in 2007 that U.S. financial problems would remain mainly limited to the subprime mortgage market, key Greek and European financial leaders maintained that Greece would be able to borrow the money it needed on the open market, restructure its economy and not pose any larger threat.
And just as Congress initially balked at a proposed bailout for U.S. banks, Europe's political leadership assumed it could tame markets with mere statements of support for Greece, and would not commit public money until the need was certain -- a delay that allowed the financial decay to reach crisis levels.
In the U.S. and European cases, evidence about the scope and potential spread of the problem were on the table, but the leaders involved were reluctant to act.
"What the IMF said from the beginning is that you need a much more comprehensive program," said a top IMF official familiar with the discussions. "The economics of it got worse and worse because market sentiment was essentially in a free fall. What could be seen as a small, manageable problem six months ago transformed into a huge, oversized problem."
He said leaders were initially daunted by the cost of shoring up the European financial system, though the sum was a great bargain compared with the ultimate price.
From the trading floors of London investment houses to the halls of the U.S. Treasury and the executive suites of the IMF, observers outside Europe began looking for -- and in some cases urging -- a decisive step as early as November.
That's when Greek-born interest rate strategist Ioannis Sokos noted on his flat-screen displays at BNP Paribas how Greek banks had begun vacuuming up low-interest loans from the European Central Bank and suspected the firms were trying to stockpile funds before investors cut them off. He interpreted this as a sign of desperation.
"There was too much borrowing going on," he said, "and it was then -- in November -- that we had the first real indication of the depth of the problem."
The markets rendered a more public judgment in December. The new Greek prime minister, George Papandreou, laid out plans to cut the country's budget deficit and reinvigorate its economy, but international bond-rating agencies were unimpressed. They downgraded the country's credit standing, the start of a rout that pushed Greece's borrowing costs to levels more familiar to credit card customers than sovereign nations.
Papandreou's proposals were "unlikely, on their own, to lead to a sustainable reduction" in Greece's debt, Standard and Poor's wrote.
At that point, top officials in the White House and at the IMF were still in accord with Europe that Greece had a chance to fix its own problems. If the country needed help, the cost was considered large but manageable -- $30 billion to $35 billion.
The level of concern began to surge in January, as the first evidence of financial contagion surfaced outside Greece in Spain and Portugal, reflected in the higher borrowing costs they were facing.
IMF officials foresaw the need for a larger and more sustained effort to help Greece than envisioned at the time by many Europeans.
By early February, U.S. officials were growing deeply worried, according to a senior administration official, and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and others began "engaging and engaging frequently" with European leaders for a broader and faster response.
He was in close contact with his German and French counterparts. Treasury officials were particularly exasperated with the apparent inability of the 16 eurozone countries, which share a common currency, to muster an emergency rescue for one of their own.
At a gathering of top world finance ministers in Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, in early February, Geithner pressed the issue with an increasing sense of urgency, even as his European counterparts insisted they were in control.
European leaders "will make sure it is managed," Lagarde said as she left the meeting. Asked how he felt about Greece's situation, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, summed up the feeling on the European side: "confident."
Hesitation by Leaders Drove Cost of Europe's Crisis Higher
By Howard Schneider and Anthony Faiola
The U.S. government and the International Monetary Fund warned European officials as early as February that escalating financial problems on their continent had to be addressed quickly to forestall a larger threat to the world economy, but those urgings were discounted, according to participants in the private discussions.
By the time European officials acted several months later -- prompted by a near-meltdown in Greece and gathering chaos in other countries -- the price tag for stemming the financial contagion had soared.
After the meltdown of the U.S. housing market showed how one country's financial problems can spill across borders, the IMF and leaders of the world's top economies have spoken of a heightened sensitivity to "systemic risk" and a greater focus on preventing it.
But the upheaval in Europe, sparked by the threat of a Greek default, underscored a paradox in how economic powers confront evolving crises. Political systems and their leaders often prove hesitant to take dramatic action on the sort of partial evidence available when a threat is emerging, avoiding decisions on controversial and expensive measures until there is no choice. But once the markets have delivered a full verdict, the crisis is in full swing and stopping it becomes harder and more expensive.
Despite mounting market evidence, warnings from the IMF and what U.S. officials described as "alarm bells" being sounded by the U.S. Treasury, European leaders this winter continued to take a minimalist approach and conclude that Greece could solve its own problems. It was only after world bond markets had all but abandoned the country, interest rates had begun rising in other European nations, and banks had become hesitant to lend each other money -- a phenomenon reminiscent of the 2008 global credit meltdown -- that European officials acted in earnest.
Over the intervening months, the cost of helping Greece avoid default increased about fourfold, to $140 billion from roughly $35 billion at the start of the year. Confidence in the European economy was so badly battered that European leaders together with the IMF had to pledge another nearly $1 trillion to reassure investors. The world's nascent economic recovery was put into jeopardy.
"If we had been able to address it right from the start, say in February, I think we would have been able to prevent it from snowballing the way that it did," French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said in an interview.
Her conclusion was shared in hindsight by many of the key figures involved in the Greek crisis, according to interviews with more than a dozen direct participants in the discussions.
Some senior European economic officials acknowledged that the Americans had pushed for an aggressive response but said they weren't the only ones. Other European officials said no one, including the United States and the IMF, fully understood the gravity of the situation until late April nor pushed intensely to address it.
Although the measures finally taken by European leaders in May helped stabilize markets, the experience raises questions about one of the basic principles now shaping debate over the world economy in the wake of the global finance crisis that spiked in 2008 -- namely that with the right information and tools, political and financial leaders can minimize systemwide risks and forestall problems before they become too serious.
Much as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke insisted for months in 2007 that U.S. financial problems would remain mainly limited to the subprime mortgage market, key Greek and European financial leaders maintained that Greece would be able to borrow the money it needed on the open market, restructure its economy and not pose any larger threat.
And just as Congress initially balked at a proposed bailout for U.S. banks, Europe's political leadership assumed it could tame markets with mere statements of support for Greece, and would not commit public money until the need was certain -- a delay that allowed the financial decay to reach crisis levels.
In the U.S. and European cases, evidence about the scope and potential spread of the problem were on the table, but the leaders involved were reluctant to act.
"What the IMF said from the beginning is that you need a much more comprehensive program," said a top IMF official familiar with the discussions. "The economics of it got worse and worse because market sentiment was essentially in a free fall. What could be seen as a small, manageable problem six months ago transformed into a huge, oversized problem."
He said leaders were initially daunted by the cost of shoring up the European financial system, though the sum was a great bargain compared with the ultimate price.
From the trading floors of London investment houses to the halls of the U.S. Treasury and the executive suites of the IMF, observers outside Europe began looking for -- and in some cases urging -- a decisive step as early as November.
That's when Greek-born interest rate strategist Ioannis Sokos noted on his flat-screen displays at BNP Paribas how Greek banks had begun vacuuming up low-interest loans from the European Central Bank and suspected the firms were trying to stockpile funds before investors cut them off. He interpreted this as a sign of desperation.
"There was too much borrowing going on," he said, "and it was then -- in November -- that we had the first real indication of the depth of the problem."
The markets rendered a more public judgment in December. The new Greek prime minister, George Papandreou, laid out plans to cut the country's budget deficit and reinvigorate its economy, but international bond-rating agencies were unimpressed. They downgraded the country's credit standing, the start of a rout that pushed Greece's borrowing costs to levels more familiar to credit card customers than sovereign nations.
Papandreou's proposals were "unlikely, on their own, to lead to a sustainable reduction" in Greece's debt, Standard and Poor's wrote.
At that point, top officials in the White House and at the IMF were still in accord with Europe that Greece had a chance to fix its own problems. If the country needed help, the cost was considered large but manageable -- $30 billion to $35 billion.
The level of concern began to surge in January, as the first evidence of financial contagion surfaced outside Greece in Spain and Portugal, reflected in the higher borrowing costs they were facing.
IMF officials foresaw the need for a larger and more sustained effort to help Greece than envisioned at the time by many Europeans.
By early February, U.S. officials were growing deeply worried, according to a senior administration official, and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and others began "engaging and engaging frequently" with European leaders for a broader and faster response.
He was in close contact with his German and French counterparts. Treasury officials were particularly exasperated with the apparent inability of the 16 eurozone countries, which share a common currency, to muster an emergency rescue for one of their own.
At a gathering of top world finance ministers in Iqaluit, Northwest Territories, in early February, Geithner pressed the issue with an increasing sense of urgency, even as his European counterparts insisted they were in control.
European leaders "will make sure it is managed," Lagarde said as she left the meeting. Asked how he felt about Greece's situation, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, summed up the feeling on the European side: "confident."
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Hamas Prevents The People of Gaza from Receiving the "Humanitarian Aid" Delivered to Gaza by Peace Activists
From Salon -- June 4, 2010:
Aid is not always welcome in Gaza
Hamas resists "blood stained" goods from flotilla while supporters of other parties lament unfair distribution
BY ULRIKE PUTZ
This article originally appeared in Der Spiegel.
The aid shipment that the Palestinian activists' flotilla was hoping to bring to Gaza before they were halted by Israeli commandos is now awaiting delivery. But Hamas will only let the badly needed goods into the territory under certain conditions. In the Gaza Strip, aid is not always greeted with enthusiasm.
Having built a three-storey house in Jabalia, north of Gaza City, Zaed Khadar used to be a proud homeowner. He ran a supermarket from the ground floor and made enough profit there to provide for his seven children. His wife bred chickens on the roof. Then came the Gaza War, a three-week conflict between December 2008 and January 2009, and suddenly Khadar's life was in ruins. His neighborhood, his house and his business were all destroyed. Since then, the 46-year-old has been helpless in every sense of the word. Donations coming to the Gaza Strip from both large and small aid organizations never arrive at the Khadars'.
"People who are not in with Hamas don't see any of the relief goods or the gifts of money," Khadar says. On the sand dune where his house once perched, there is now an emergency shelter. The shelter is made of concrete blocks that Khadar dug from the rubble, and the roof is the canvas of a tent that provided the family with shelter for the first summer after the war. "Hamas supporters get prefabricated housing, furnishings and paid work. We get nothing," Khadar complains.
Hamas Members Take and Distribute 'at Their Own Discretion'
The reason his family receives nothing: Like many of his neighbors, Khadar is a die-hard supporter of the Fatah party, the sworn political enemy of the more radical Islamists in Hamas. That's why Khadar has little hope of seeing any of the 10,000 tons of aid that the activist flotilla heading for the Gaza Strip tried to bring to Gaza's harbor at the start of this week.
Aid is not always welcome in Gaza
Hamas resists "blood stained" goods from flotilla while supporters of other parties lament unfair distribution
BY ULRIKE PUTZ
This article originally appeared in Der Spiegel.
The aid shipment that the Palestinian activists' flotilla was hoping to bring to Gaza before they were halted by Israeli commandos is now awaiting delivery. But Hamas will only let the badly needed goods into the territory under certain conditions. In the Gaza Strip, aid is not always greeted with enthusiasm.
Having built a three-storey house in Jabalia, north of Gaza City, Zaed Khadar used to be a proud homeowner. He ran a supermarket from the ground floor and made enough profit there to provide for his seven children. His wife bred chickens on the roof. Then came the Gaza War, a three-week conflict between December 2008 and January 2009, and suddenly Khadar's life was in ruins. His neighborhood, his house and his business were all destroyed. Since then, the 46-year-old has been helpless in every sense of the word. Donations coming to the Gaza Strip from both large and small aid organizations never arrive at the Khadars'.
"People who are not in with Hamas don't see any of the relief goods or the gifts of money," Khadar says. On the sand dune where his house once perched, there is now an emergency shelter. The shelter is made of concrete blocks that Khadar dug from the rubble, and the roof is the canvas of a tent that provided the family with shelter for the first summer after the war. "Hamas supporters get prefabricated housing, furnishings and paid work. We get nothing," Khadar complains.
Hamas Members Take and Distribute 'at Their Own Discretion'
The reason his family receives nothing: Like many of his neighbors, Khadar is a die-hard supporter of the Fatah party, the sworn political enemy of the more radical Islamists in Hamas. That's why Khadar has little hope of seeing any of the 10,000 tons of aid that the activist flotilla heading for the Gaza Strip tried to bring to Gaza's harbor at the start of this week.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Quote Of The Day
From The Washington Post -- June 4, 2010:
"If I had a tombstone for every time they declared us dead, we could open a cemetery," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
"If I had a tombstone for every time they declared us dead, we could open a cemetery," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
The "Peace Flotilla's" Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
From The New York Times -- June 2, 2010:
An Assault, Cloaked in Peace
By MICHAEL B. OREN -- Israel's Ambassador to the United States
PEACE activists are people who demonstrate nonviolently for peaceful co-existence and human rights. The mob that assaulted Israeli special forces on the deck of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on Monday was not motivated by peace. On the contrary, the religious extremists embedded among those on board were paid and equipped to attack Israelis — both by their own hands as well as by aiding Hamas — and to destroy any hope of peace.
Millions have already seen the Al Jazeera broadcast showing these “activists” chanting “Khaibar! Khaibar!”— a reference to a Muslim massacre of Jews in the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century. YouTube viewers saw Israeli troops, armed with crowd-dispersing paintball guns and side arms for emergency protection, being beaten and hurled over the railings of the ship by attackers wielding iron bars.
What the videos don’t show, however, are several curious aspects Israeli authorities are now investigating. First, about 100 of those detained from the boats were carrying immense sums in their pockets — nearly a million euros in total. Second, Israel discovered spent bullet cartridges on the Mavi Marmara that are of a caliber not used by the Israeli commandos, some of whom suffered gunshot wounds. Also found on the boat were propaganda clips showing passengers “injured” by Israeli forces; these videos, however, were filmed during daylight, hours before the nighttime operation occurred.
The investigations of all this evidence will be transparent, in accordance with Israel’s security needs.
There is little doubt as to the real purpose of the Mavi Marmara’s voyage — not to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, but to create a provocation that would put international pressure on Israel to drop the Gaza embargo, and thus allow the flow of seaborne military supplies to Hamas. Just as Hamas gunmen hide behind civilians in Gaza, so, too, do their sponsors cower behind shipments of seemingly innocent aid.
This is why the organizers of the flotilla repeatedly rejected Israeli offers to transfer its cargo to Gaza once it was inspected for military contraband. They also rebuffed an Israeli request to earmark some aid packages for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas for four years.
In the recent past, Israeli forces have diverted nine such flotillas, all without incident, and peacefully boarded five of the ships in this week’s convoy. Their cargoes, after proper inspection, were delivered to non-Hamas institutions in Gaza. Only the Marmara, a vessel too large to be neutralized by technical means such as fouling the propeller, violently resisted. It is no coincidence that the ship was dispatched by Insani Yardim Vakfi (also called the I.H.H.), a supposed charity that Israeli and other intelligence services have linked to Islamic extremists.
The real intent of breaking the embargo is to allow rockets to be transported to Gaza from Hamas’s suppliers in Syria and Iran. Israel has already intercepted several such ships laden with munitions. Since Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at our civilian population. This week, two Hamas rockets exploded near Ashkelon, one of Israel’s largest cities.
Israel has a right and a duty to defend itself from Hamas and its backers. Our struggle is not with the people of Gaza but only with the radical regime that overthrew the legitimate Palestinian Authority and has pledged to seek Israel’s destruction. Each day, Israel facilitates the passage into Gaza of more than 100 truckloads of food and medicine — there is no shortage of either. We, too, want a free Gaza — a Gaza liberated from brutal Hamas rule — as well as an Israel freed from terrorist threats.
Israel will scrupulously review the events surrounding the Marmara’s interception. But Israel will also persist in denying advanced weaponry to Hamas. At the same time, the Israeli government will vigorously pursue peace with the Palestinian Authority, which shares our need for defense against armed extremists. The real peace activists are those who support our vision of a two-state solution, not those supporting the terrorists bent on destroying it.
An Assault, Cloaked in Peace
By MICHAEL B. OREN -- Israel's Ambassador to the United States
PEACE activists are people who demonstrate nonviolently for peaceful co-existence and human rights. The mob that assaulted Israeli special forces on the deck of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on Monday was not motivated by peace. On the contrary, the religious extremists embedded among those on board were paid and equipped to attack Israelis — both by their own hands as well as by aiding Hamas — and to destroy any hope of peace.
Millions have already seen the Al Jazeera broadcast showing these “activists” chanting “Khaibar! Khaibar!”— a reference to a Muslim massacre of Jews in the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century. YouTube viewers saw Israeli troops, armed with crowd-dispersing paintball guns and side arms for emergency protection, being beaten and hurled over the railings of the ship by attackers wielding iron bars.
What the videos don’t show, however, are several curious aspects Israeli authorities are now investigating. First, about 100 of those detained from the boats were carrying immense sums in their pockets — nearly a million euros in total. Second, Israel discovered spent bullet cartridges on the Mavi Marmara that are of a caliber not used by the Israeli commandos, some of whom suffered gunshot wounds. Also found on the boat were propaganda clips showing passengers “injured” by Israeli forces; these videos, however, were filmed during daylight, hours before the nighttime operation occurred.
The investigations of all this evidence will be transparent, in accordance with Israel’s security needs.
There is little doubt as to the real purpose of the Mavi Marmara’s voyage — not to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, but to create a provocation that would put international pressure on Israel to drop the Gaza embargo, and thus allow the flow of seaborne military supplies to Hamas. Just as Hamas gunmen hide behind civilians in Gaza, so, too, do their sponsors cower behind shipments of seemingly innocent aid.
This is why the organizers of the flotilla repeatedly rejected Israeli offers to transfer its cargo to Gaza once it was inspected for military contraband. They also rebuffed an Israeli request to earmark some aid packages for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas for four years.
In the recent past, Israeli forces have diverted nine such flotillas, all without incident, and peacefully boarded five of the ships in this week’s convoy. Their cargoes, after proper inspection, were delivered to non-Hamas institutions in Gaza. Only the Marmara, a vessel too large to be neutralized by technical means such as fouling the propeller, violently resisted. It is no coincidence that the ship was dispatched by Insani Yardim Vakfi (also called the I.H.H.), a supposed charity that Israeli and other intelligence services have linked to Islamic extremists.
The real intent of breaking the embargo is to allow rockets to be transported to Gaza from Hamas’s suppliers in Syria and Iran. Israel has already intercepted several such ships laden with munitions. Since Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at our civilian population. This week, two Hamas rockets exploded near Ashkelon, one of Israel’s largest cities.
Israel has a right and a duty to defend itself from Hamas and its backers. Our struggle is not with the people of Gaza but only with the radical regime that overthrew the legitimate Palestinian Authority and has pledged to seek Israel’s destruction. Each day, Israel facilitates the passage into Gaza of more than 100 truckloads of food and medicine — there is no shortage of either. We, too, want a free Gaza — a Gaza liberated from brutal Hamas rule — as well as an Israel freed from terrorist threats.
Israel will scrupulously review the events surrounding the Marmara’s interception. But Israel will also persist in denying advanced weaponry to Hamas. At the same time, the Israeli government will vigorously pursue peace with the Palestinian Authority, which shares our need for defense against armed extremists. The real peace activists are those who support our vision of a two-state solution, not those supporting the terrorists bent on destroying it.
Charles Krauthammer Is Completely Right about the "Peace Flotilla"
From The Washington Post -- Friday, June 4, 2010:
"Those Troublesome Jews"
By Charles Krauthammer
The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.
(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.
Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.
But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.
Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.
(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.
The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.
(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.
But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?
Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.
What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.
The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.
"Those Troublesome Jews"
By Charles Krauthammer
The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.
(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.
Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.
But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.
Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.
(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.
The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.
(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.
But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?
Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.
What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.
The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Truth About the Israeli-"Peace Flotilla" Confrontation
From AIPAC --- June 1, 2010:
Flotilla Sought Provocation, Not to Provide Assistance
The primary aim of the Gaza flotilla was not to provide humanitarian relief; it was to cause a provocation with Israel. Its top organizers and some of its participants are radicals with ties to terrorist groups that sought a violent confrontation. In contrast, the Israeli navy had worked hard to plan a peaceful interception of the six ships and its personnel only used force when their lives were at risk. Israel has legitimate self-defense reasons to inspect the cargo going into the Hamas-controlled area, where the U.S.-designated terrorist group has smuggled in thousands of munitions and rockets for use in attacks against Israeli civilians.
The flotilla’s primary aim was not to provide humanitarian relief; it was to cause a provocation. Its top organizers and some of its participants are radicals with ties to terrorist groups.
The flotilla's organizers willfully ignored repeated warnings that they would be denied entry—including messages from the European Union—and rejected offers by Israel to transfer humanitarian goods through the Israeli port of Ashdod.
One of the flotilla’s leaders, Greta Berlin, stated that “this mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians,” the AFP reported on May 27.
The head of the group that organized the flotilla, Bulent Yildirim (left), is closely linked with Ismail Haniyeh’s U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The main organizer of the flotilla—whose members led the assault on the IDF—was the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), which has publicly affirmed its links to Hamas, maintains an office in Gaza and has ties to other terrorist organizations. IHH has also been linked to al-Qaeda and played a role in al-Qaeda’s failed Millennium bombing of Los Angeles International Airport, according to French counter-terrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière, who testified during the trial of failed bomber Ahmed Ressam.
The Israeli navy had worked hard to plan a peaceful interception of the six ships and the soldiers only used force when their lives were at risk.
Individuals aboard the vessels had clearly prepared for violence, chanting an Islamic battle cry recalling the killing of Jews and calling for martyrdom, according to an Al-Jazeera report.
While intercepting six ships attempting to break the naval blockade of Gaza after frequent warnings not to proceed, Israeli soldiers were attacked immediately upon boarding one of them.
The outnumbered soldiers were immediately and brutally attacked with crowbars, clubs and knives and shot at with guns stolen from soldiers, seven of whom were injured. One soldier was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet below and sustained a severe head injury.
Israeli soldiers reacted with the utmost restraint. Only when their lives were in danger did they seek and receive permission to open fire. Regrettably, nine flotilla participants were killed and others injured. Seven Israeli soldiers were injured.
Israel has a legitimate right to self-defense and reason to be concerned about cargo going unchecked into Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The charter of Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist group that seized Gaza in an armed coup from the Palestinian Authority in 2007, calls for the destruction of Israel.
Israel’s actions are aimed at blocking arms and explosives shipments to Hamas, which is at war with the Jewish state. Hamas has fired more than 7,000 rockets and mortar shells into Israel since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
Hamas continues to operate a vast network of tunnels under Gaza, which it uses to smuggle in weapons from Iran and Syria for attacks against Israeli civilians. It also has repeatedly sought to smuggle weapons through the sea.
According to international legal experts, it is legitimate for a state to impose an embargo on international waters during wartime. Israel’s detention of the flotilla ships—and its use of force to defend its soldiers when attacked by some of the radicals—is acceptable under international law.
Egypt also has imposed a blockade on Gaza to protect its own internal security by constructing an underground steel wall along the Sinai-Gaza border to help stymie the flow of illicit goods. Israel continues to facilitate a vast operation to provide humanitarian goods and medical services to the people of Gaza.
Since the end of the Gaza war in 2009, Israel has facilitated the transfer of more than a million tons of humanitarian supplies to Gaza and 133 million liters of fuel. Israel is now in the process of unloading the items from the flotilla and is transferring legitimate humanitarian items into Gaza via established mechanisms.
To handle the delivery of humanitarian aid and other civilian issues related to Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has a special unit in the Ministry of Defense—the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).
The U.N. issued a presidential statement condemning the events leading up to the incident, which some have interpreted as a criticism of Israel. It would have been preferable if the U.N. and Obama administration had blocked any action implying criticism of Israel for defending itself. Nonetheless, intervention by the United States prevented passage of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel.
The administration continues to express its confidence in Israel’s ability to conduct its own investigation of the incident despite calls for an international inquiry.
During the Security Council deliberations, Alejandro Wolff, deputy U.S. representative to the U.N., said the “direct delivery by sea [of humanitarian supplies] is neither appropriate nor responsible” and criticized Hamas’ “continued arms smuggling and commitment to terrorism.”
The United States must now maintain its longstanding position not to allow the Security Council and other U.N. organs such as the U.N. Human Rights Council to exploit unfortunate incidents by passing biased, anti-Israel resolutions that obscure the truth and accomplish nothing.
Flotilla Sought Provocation, Not to Provide Assistance
The primary aim of the Gaza flotilla was not to provide humanitarian relief; it was to cause a provocation with Israel. Its top organizers and some of its participants are radicals with ties to terrorist groups that sought a violent confrontation. In contrast, the Israeli navy had worked hard to plan a peaceful interception of the six ships and its personnel only used force when their lives were at risk. Israel has legitimate self-defense reasons to inspect the cargo going into the Hamas-controlled area, where the U.S.-designated terrorist group has smuggled in thousands of munitions and rockets for use in attacks against Israeli civilians.
The flotilla’s primary aim was not to provide humanitarian relief; it was to cause a provocation. Its top organizers and some of its participants are radicals with ties to terrorist groups.
The flotilla's organizers willfully ignored repeated warnings that they would be denied entry—including messages from the European Union—and rejected offers by Israel to transfer humanitarian goods through the Israeli port of Ashdod.
One of the flotilla’s leaders, Greta Berlin, stated that “this mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians,” the AFP reported on May 27.
The head of the group that organized the flotilla, Bulent Yildirim (left), is closely linked with Ismail Haniyeh’s U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The main organizer of the flotilla—whose members led the assault on the IDF—was the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), which has publicly affirmed its links to Hamas, maintains an office in Gaza and has ties to other terrorist organizations. IHH has also been linked to al-Qaeda and played a role in al-Qaeda’s failed Millennium bombing of Los Angeles International Airport, according to French counter-terrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière, who testified during the trial of failed bomber Ahmed Ressam.
The Israeli navy had worked hard to plan a peaceful interception of the six ships and the soldiers only used force when their lives were at risk.
Individuals aboard the vessels had clearly prepared for violence, chanting an Islamic battle cry recalling the killing of Jews and calling for martyrdom, according to an Al-Jazeera report.
While intercepting six ships attempting to break the naval blockade of Gaza after frequent warnings not to proceed, Israeli soldiers were attacked immediately upon boarding one of them.
The outnumbered soldiers were immediately and brutally attacked with crowbars, clubs and knives and shot at with guns stolen from soldiers, seven of whom were injured. One soldier was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet below and sustained a severe head injury.
Israeli soldiers reacted with the utmost restraint. Only when their lives were in danger did they seek and receive permission to open fire. Regrettably, nine flotilla participants were killed and others injured. Seven Israeli soldiers were injured.
Israel has a legitimate right to self-defense and reason to be concerned about cargo going unchecked into Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The charter of Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist group that seized Gaza in an armed coup from the Palestinian Authority in 2007, calls for the destruction of Israel.
Israel’s actions are aimed at blocking arms and explosives shipments to Hamas, which is at war with the Jewish state. Hamas has fired more than 7,000 rockets and mortar shells into Israel since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.
Hamas continues to operate a vast network of tunnels under Gaza, which it uses to smuggle in weapons from Iran and Syria for attacks against Israeli civilians. It also has repeatedly sought to smuggle weapons through the sea.
According to international legal experts, it is legitimate for a state to impose an embargo on international waters during wartime. Israel’s detention of the flotilla ships—and its use of force to defend its soldiers when attacked by some of the radicals—is acceptable under international law.
Egypt also has imposed a blockade on Gaza to protect its own internal security by constructing an underground steel wall along the Sinai-Gaza border to help stymie the flow of illicit goods. Israel continues to facilitate a vast operation to provide humanitarian goods and medical services to the people of Gaza.
Since the end of the Gaza war in 2009, Israel has facilitated the transfer of more than a million tons of humanitarian supplies to Gaza and 133 million liters of fuel. Israel is now in the process of unloading the items from the flotilla and is transferring legitimate humanitarian items into Gaza via established mechanisms.
To handle the delivery of humanitarian aid and other civilian issues related to Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has a special unit in the Ministry of Defense—the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).
The U.N. issued a presidential statement condemning the events leading up to the incident, which some have interpreted as a criticism of Israel. It would have been preferable if the U.N. and Obama administration had blocked any action implying criticism of Israel for defending itself. Nonetheless, intervention by the United States prevented passage of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel.
The administration continues to express its confidence in Israel’s ability to conduct its own investigation of the incident despite calls for an international inquiry.
During the Security Council deliberations, Alejandro Wolff, deputy U.S. representative to the U.N., said the “direct delivery by sea [of humanitarian supplies] is neither appropriate nor responsible” and criticized Hamas’ “continued arms smuggling and commitment to terrorism.”
The United States must now maintain its longstanding position not to allow the Security Council and other U.N. organs such as the U.N. Human Rights Council to exploit unfortunate incidents by passing biased, anti-Israel resolutions that obscure the truth and accomplish nothing.
Lying Sean Hannity Does It Again
Here's more Hannity Insanity:
From Media Matters For America -- June 3, 2010:
Hannity falsely claims Romanoff "is admitting he was offered a job" to exit Senate race.
Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Andrew Romanoff, who is running against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado's U.S. Senate election, "is confirming just now tonight he was offered a position" if he would exit the race.
In fact, Romanoff reportedly stated: "At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request [White House deputy chief of staff Jim] Messina's assistance in obtaining one."
From Media Matters For America -- June 3, 2010:
Hannity falsely claims Romanoff "is admitting he was offered a job" to exit Senate race.
Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Andrew Romanoff, who is running against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado's U.S. Senate election, "is confirming just now tonight he was offered a position" if he would exit the race.
In fact, Romanoff reportedly stated: "At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request [White House deputy chief of staff Jim] Messina's assistance in obtaining one."
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Sean Hannity -- The Long-Nosed Lying Liar of the Far Right Conservative Nut-Wing Noise Machine -- His Nose Has Just Grown a Wee Bit Longer
Folks, here's the latest helping of Hannity Insanity!
From Media Matters for America --- June 2, 2010:
Legal experts debunk Hannity's Sestak "crime" claims point-by-point:
Over the past week, Sean Hannity and his guests have cited six different statutes that they claim were violated when the White House offered a position on a panel to Rep. Joe Sestak. Legal experts have repudiated the claim that any of those statutes apply to the offer.
18 U.S.C. § 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
The claim: Hannity has repeatedly claimed the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600.
On the May 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity, discussing laws he believes were violated by the Sestak offer, Hannity said, "We have 18 U.S. Code 600 says that the -- a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act."
On the May 26 edition of Hannity, discussing laws he believes were violated by the Sestak offer, Hannity said, "All right, 18 U.S. Code 600 says a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act."
On the May 27 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said, "Eighteen U.S. Code 600 says a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act," and concluded, "Seems to me that Joe Sestak is claiming a felony was committed."
On the May 28 edition of Fox News program, Hannity said that 18 U.C.S. § 600 was "almost written" to ban acts like the Sestak offer. He later said that the offer was "by my interpretation of the law, still be a thing of value for a political act... Which is against the law. U.S. Code 18, U.S. Code 600, 18 U.S. Code 210, 211."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 600 reads:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The rebuttals. Legal experts have rebutted the claim that the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600, including:
Bush ethics lawyer Painter: "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied" to this case. In a May 28 post, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported of his interview that day with former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter. Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute prohibiting any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."
But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.
For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.
"Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."
Law professor Hasen: "I can't find a case" where the statute "has ever been applied in this way." Discussing 18 U.S.C. § 600, Hasen stated: "I went back and looked at this Section 600, the one that says about these job offers. That seems to be a statute that's really aimed at preventing patronage appointments. That is, you know, giving people who have done political favors for you jobs where they make money. I can't find a case where it's ever been applied in this way, and I think there are some good reasons why it probably shouldn't be. What we have here, really, is a political deal. It's a deal to say in order to strengthen the party, one of the two people competing should step aside. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and it's the kind of thing that probably is not what the statute was really designed to prevent."
Bush AG Mukasey: Based on White House and Sestak statements, offer "doesn't violate the statute." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute."
CREW's Sloan: Criminal allegations based on this interpretation of law are "ludicrous." In a May 27 blog post, NBC News' Mark Murray reported: "Melanie Sloan, the executive director of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that criminal allegations in the Sestak case are "ludicrous." She points out that there has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. "There's no definition of 'political activity' within the law," she said. "It's really not a very well-written statute."
18 U.S.C. § 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses
The claim. Hannity has repeatedly claimed the White House attempted to "bribe" Sestak. On the May 26 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity said, "news of the White House's alleged attempt to bribe Congressman Joe Sestak into dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race has lingered in the public for four months now and the longer it does so the more bizarre it becomes." Later on the same program, Hannity stated of the offer, "I believe this is a bribe."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 201 reads in part:
(b) Whoever --
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent --
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
The rebuttals: Legal experts have denied that the Sestak offer violated the federal bribery statute, including:
Painter: Job offer "is hardly a 'bribe.'" In a May 24 blog post, Painter wrote:
"The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.
The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter's way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President's political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don't like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a "win-win" situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying "no". The job offer, however, is hardly a "bribe" when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive."
Sloan: "There's no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that Sloan had said of the Sestak offer, "There is no bribery case here... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Likewise, in a May 28 MSNBC appearance, Sloan stated that "bribery is a tough case to prove. You need an official act in exchange for a thing of value. You just don't have that case here." She added: "Mr. Sestak didn't have any kind of official act to trade. Not running for Congress, not running for Senate, can't be an official act, which is the kind of thing he would have to exchange for that thing of value."
From Media Matters for America --- June 2, 2010:
Legal experts debunk Hannity's Sestak "crime" claims point-by-point:
Over the past week, Sean Hannity and his guests have cited six different statutes that they claim were violated when the White House offered a position on a panel to Rep. Joe Sestak. Legal experts have repudiated the claim that any of those statutes apply to the offer.
18 U.S.C. § 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
The claim: Hannity has repeatedly claimed the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600.
On the May 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity, discussing laws he believes were violated by the Sestak offer, Hannity said, "We have 18 U.S. Code 600 says that the -- a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act."
On the May 26 edition of Hannity, discussing laws he believes were violated by the Sestak offer, Hannity said, "All right, 18 U.S. Code 600 says a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act."
On the May 27 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity said, "Eighteen U.S. Code 600 says a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government in return for a political act," and concluded, "Seems to me that Joe Sestak is claiming a felony was committed."
On the May 28 edition of Fox News program, Hannity said that 18 U.C.S. § 600 was "almost written" to ban acts like the Sestak offer. He later said that the offer was "by my interpretation of the law, still be a thing of value for a political act... Which is against the law. U.S. Code 18, U.S. Code 600, 18 U.S. Code 210, 211."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 600 reads:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The rebuttals. Legal experts have rebutted the claim that the Sestak offer violated 18 U.S.C. § 600, including:
Bush ethics lawyer Painter: "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied" to this case. In a May 28 post, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported of his interview that day with former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter. Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute prohibiting any promises of "employment" as a "reward for any political activity."
But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of "political activity" referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.
For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. "I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election," Painter said.
"Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."
Law professor Hasen: "I can't find a case" where the statute "has ever been applied in this way." Discussing 18 U.S.C. § 600, Hasen stated: "I went back and looked at this Section 600, the one that says about these job offers. That seems to be a statute that's really aimed at preventing patronage appointments. That is, you know, giving people who have done political favors for you jobs where they make money. I can't find a case where it's ever been applied in this way, and I think there are some good reasons why it probably shouldn't be. What we have here, really, is a political deal. It's a deal to say in order to strengthen the party, one of the two people competing should step aside. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and it's the kind of thing that probably is not what the statute was really designed to prevent."
Bush AG Mukasey: Based on White House and Sestak statements, offer "doesn't violate the statute." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If it's not, then it doesn't violate the statute."
CREW's Sloan: Criminal allegations based on this interpretation of law are "ludicrous." In a May 27 blog post, NBC News' Mark Murray reported: "Melanie Sloan, the executive director of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that criminal allegations in the Sestak case are "ludicrous." She points out that there has never been a prosecution under the 1972 law cited by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. "There's no definition of 'political activity' within the law," she said. "It's really not a very well-written statute."
18 U.S.C. § 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses
The claim. Hannity has repeatedly claimed the White House attempted to "bribe" Sestak. On the May 26 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity said, "news of the White House's alleged attempt to bribe Congressman Joe Sestak into dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race has lingered in the public for four months now and the longer it does so the more bizarre it becomes." Later on the same program, Hannity stated of the offer, "I believe this is a bribe."
The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 201 reads in part:
(b) Whoever --
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent --
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
The rebuttals: Legal experts have denied that the Sestak offer violated the federal bribery statute, including:
Painter: Job offer "is hardly a 'bribe.'" In a May 24 blog post, Painter wrote:
"The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.
The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter's way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President's political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don't like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a "win-win" situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying "no". The job offer, however, is hardly a "bribe" when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive."
Sloan: "There's no bribery case here." Talking Points Memo's Zachary Roth reported in a May 25 post that Sloan had said of the Sestak offer, "There is no bribery case here... No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this." Likewise, in a May 28 MSNBC appearance, Sloan stated that "bribery is a tough case to prove. You need an official act in exchange for a thing of value. You just don't have that case here." She added: "Mr. Sestak didn't have any kind of official act to trade. Not running for Congress, not running for Senate, can't be an official act, which is the kind of thing he would have to exchange for that thing of value."
Congratulations to the GOP -- The Grand Old Party Has Done It Again!
From The Washington Post -- June 2, 2010:
Ex-Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer Indicted on Six Felony Counts
By Matt DeLong
Jim Greer, former head of the Florida Republican Party, was arrested Wednesday morning at his home near Orlando, law enforcement officials said. The Orlando Sun-Sentinel reports that at a press conference Wednesday, statewide prosecutor William Shepherd said that "a statewide grand jury indicted Greer on six felony charges: organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, and four counts of grand theft."
Shepherd said Greer developed a scheme to take money from the Republican Party. He used the money for his personal expenses.
The Associated Press has more details:
Greer funneled party money to a company called Victory Strategies that he controlled and concealed his relationship with, investigators said. On Greer's orders, the Republican Party of Florida paid Victory Strategies for campaign work, much of which was never performed. That was in addition to a 10 percent cut of major donations to the party that Greer took along with his top assistant, Delmar Johnson, Shepherd said.
Greer got about $125,000 of the almost $200,000 that the party paid Victory Strategies, the statewide prosecutor said.
Victory Strategies also received money from a fund Greer had set up for his re-election campaign as party chairman, he added.
The St. Petersburg Times has the affidavit.
In April, Greer was named as the subject of a criminal probe concerning "a secret contract that funneled party money to a consulting company he owned," the Miami Herald reported. Greer, a close ally of Gov. Charlie Crist, stepped down from his post in January under pressure from party activists and major donors outraged by lavish spending. Crist said Wednesday that the arrest was "disappointing " but he does not "feel complicit."
When asked earlier this year about his support for Greer, Crist responded,"I didn't have a crystal ball. Neither did you."
More on Greer's financial scandal from the AP:
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has been investigating Greer since an audit found he awarded himself and his executive director a fundraising contract that paid them about $200,000.
Greer owned 60 percent of a corporation set up to raise money for the party and former party executive director Delmar Johnson owned the other 40 percent. That corporation got a 10 percent commission on money it brought in, the audit found.
Current party Chairman John Thrasher previously said he was told March 15 that the party may have been the victim of illegal activity after the audit discovered Greer and Johnson's role in the corporation. Thrasher reported the findings to the attorney general's office, which referred the case to state officials.
Ex-Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer Indicted on Six Felony Counts
By Matt DeLong
Jim Greer, former head of the Florida Republican Party, was arrested Wednesday morning at his home near Orlando, law enforcement officials said. The Orlando Sun-Sentinel reports that at a press conference Wednesday, statewide prosecutor William Shepherd said that "a statewide grand jury indicted Greer on six felony charges: organized scheme to defraud, money laundering, and four counts of grand theft."
Shepherd said Greer developed a scheme to take money from the Republican Party. He used the money for his personal expenses.
The Associated Press has more details:
Greer funneled party money to a company called Victory Strategies that he controlled and concealed his relationship with, investigators said. On Greer's orders, the Republican Party of Florida paid Victory Strategies for campaign work, much of which was never performed. That was in addition to a 10 percent cut of major donations to the party that Greer took along with his top assistant, Delmar Johnson, Shepherd said.
Greer got about $125,000 of the almost $200,000 that the party paid Victory Strategies, the statewide prosecutor said.
Victory Strategies also received money from a fund Greer had set up for his re-election campaign as party chairman, he added.
The St. Petersburg Times has the affidavit.
In April, Greer was named as the subject of a criminal probe concerning "a secret contract that funneled party money to a consulting company he owned," the Miami Herald reported. Greer, a close ally of Gov. Charlie Crist, stepped down from his post in January under pressure from party activists and major donors outraged by lavish spending. Crist said Wednesday that the arrest was "disappointing " but he does not "feel complicit."
When asked earlier this year about his support for Greer, Crist responded,"I didn't have a crystal ball. Neither did you."
More on Greer's financial scandal from the AP:
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has been investigating Greer since an audit found he awarded himself and his executive director a fundraising contract that paid them about $200,000.
Greer owned 60 percent of a corporation set up to raise money for the party and former party executive director Delmar Johnson owned the other 40 percent. That corporation got a 10 percent commission on money it brought in, the audit found.
Current party Chairman John Thrasher previously said he was told March 15 that the party may have been the victim of illegal activity after the audit discovered Greer and Johnson's role in the corporation. Thrasher reported the findings to the attorney general's office, which referred the case to state officials.
Cheney's Katrina
The Center for American Progress will be out today with a report calling the BP disaster 'Cheney's Katrina':
'President Bush and Vice President Cheney consistently catered to Big Oil and other special interests to undercut renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives that would set the U.S. on a more secure clean-energy path. Oil companies raked in record profits while benefitting from policies they wrote for themselves. These energy policies did nothing for our national security and left consumers to pay the price at the pump and on their energy bills, which rose more than $1,100 during the administration.'
'President Bush and Vice President Cheney consistently catered to Big Oil and other special interests to undercut renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives that would set the U.S. on a more secure clean-energy path. Oil companies raked in record profits while benefitting from policies they wrote for themselves. These energy policies did nothing for our national security and left consumers to pay the price at the pump and on their energy bills, which rose more than $1,100 during the administration.'
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
FOX News Wants to Show a Video in Which Obama States That He Is a Moslem
This new FOX video is simply the latest piece of FOX malarkey scraped directly off the bottom of the FOX NEWS dungheap.
Obama is a Christian, and he spent 20 years in a Christian Church listening to the very Reverend Wright whom all Conservatives loathe.
How can Conservatives have it both ways?
How can Conservatives attack Obama for listening to that fiery Christian preacher Reverend Wright in a Christian Church for 20 years -- without raising any objections -- and in the same breath say that Obama is a Muslim? And, what Moslem Mosque was Obama attending with his family during those 20 years?
No wonder Conservatives are called Flat Earthers. Their tiny brains aren't very hospitable to facts.
True, Obama had a Moslem father, did live as a child in Moslem countries such as Kenya, and while there he heard the daily call to Moslem services (which can also be heard everywhere in Israel). That does not mean that Obama is a Moslem. He ain't.
In Obama's own words, he is reaching out and trying to show his personal affinity with the Moslem people. Obama is as much of a Moslem as JFK was "Ein Berliner" -- and, in exactly the same sense. Both Obama and JFK were reaching out to other people to show that they are friends, not enemies, of these people -- to show their kinship, affinity and empathy with these people.
The fact is that Moslems are not our enemies. Most Moslems are peace-loving folks.
Our enemies are a violent, lunatic, fundamentalist group of Moslems who are, in fact, the enemies of most normal Moslems as well as being our enemies. Obama in his quoted remarks is reaching out to the sane Moslems of the world, to keep them on our side, and to help us isolate and destroy the Moslem fanatics.
Obama's approach is having good results. The frequent US drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are now killing many of the worst terrorists, are the direct result of information being given to us by Moslems who are on our side, to help identify, locate and destroy the terrorist fanatics.
Unfortunately, Moslems do not have a monopoly on lunatics. The lunatics who created the FOX video -- completely distorting and misrepresenting what Obama is saying, doing and accomplishing -- prove that we have our own share of home-grown looney-tunes right here in the Good Old USA.
Don't buy their Brooklyn Bridge. Let them find other, more gullible buyers to whom to peddle their shoddy wares.
Obama is a Christian, and he spent 20 years in a Christian Church listening to the very Reverend Wright whom all Conservatives loathe.
How can Conservatives have it both ways?
How can Conservatives attack Obama for listening to that fiery Christian preacher Reverend Wright in a Christian Church for 20 years -- without raising any objections -- and in the same breath say that Obama is a Muslim? And, what Moslem Mosque was Obama attending with his family during those 20 years?
No wonder Conservatives are called Flat Earthers. Their tiny brains aren't very hospitable to facts.
True, Obama had a Moslem father, did live as a child in Moslem countries such as Kenya, and while there he heard the daily call to Moslem services (which can also be heard everywhere in Israel). That does not mean that Obama is a Moslem. He ain't.
In Obama's own words, he is reaching out and trying to show his personal affinity with the Moslem people. Obama is as much of a Moslem as JFK was "Ein Berliner" -- and, in exactly the same sense. Both Obama and JFK were reaching out to other people to show that they are friends, not enemies, of these people -- to show their kinship, affinity and empathy with these people.
The fact is that Moslems are not our enemies. Most Moslems are peace-loving folks.
Our enemies are a violent, lunatic, fundamentalist group of Moslems who are, in fact, the enemies of most normal Moslems as well as being our enemies. Obama in his quoted remarks is reaching out to the sane Moslems of the world, to keep them on our side, and to help us isolate and destroy the Moslem fanatics.
Obama's approach is having good results. The frequent US drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are now killing many of the worst terrorists, are the direct result of information being given to us by Moslems who are on our side, to help identify, locate and destroy the terrorist fanatics.
Unfortunately, Moslems do not have a monopoly on lunatics. The lunatics who created the FOX video -- completely distorting and misrepresenting what Obama is saying, doing and accomplishing -- prove that we have our own share of home-grown looney-tunes right here in the Good Old USA.
Don't buy their Brooklyn Bridge. Let them find other, more gullible buyers to whom to peddle their shoddy wares.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
